HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-04-03 Minutes• MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Sign Appeals was held on Monday, April 3, 1989 at 3:45 P.M. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Mills, Dennis Becker, Larry Tompkins, Dee Wright, Gerald Boyd, Robert Waldren and Robert Davis OTHERS PRESENT: Freeman Wood, John Merrell, Boyd Harris and Elaine Cattaneo MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of February 20, 1989 were approved as distributed. SIGN APPEAL NO. SA89-1 BOYD W HARRIS - 1803 GREEN ACRES RD The only item was a sign appeal submitted by Boyd W. Harris- for -property located at 1803 Green Acres Road and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request was for a variance from the Sign Ordinance: Article 17, Section 17B-9. Chairman Mills advised that this item had been postponed from the last meeting. Dr. Harris stated that the sign he has is a nice looking ,16 square foot sign and it is not that far out of line with any other signs along there including Dr. Stanton's and Dr. Renegar's signs. The VA Hospital has signs that are closer to the highway than his sign is. Chairman Mills advised that the Board of Sign Appeals has no jurisdiction over the VA Hospital and she believed that Dr. Stanton's sign had been there since before this ordinance was established. Dr. Harris noted that if it was moved back too much farther, it would run into a big tree. In answer to a question from Chairman Mills, Dr. Harris stated that he had a sign maker put the sign in. Mr. Waldren stated that from what he understands, the sign is 7' from the right- of-way. He asked what the requirements are. Freeman Wood, Inspection Superintendent, stated that the requirement is with a 10 square foot sign they have to have a 15' setback. Then there is an increase of 2' in size for each foot it is moved back so that would put it at 18'. Therefore, this sign would have to go back another 11' from where it is. • Board of Sign Appeals April 3, 1989 Page 2 • • Dr. Harris stated that the sign will moved back that far and it wouldn't the sign he had before was almost in be way back under the tree if it has to be be seen in the summertime. He advised that the ditch and he moved it back quite a ways. Chairman Mills stated that when she drove by there, it seemed that the sign would be more visible if it were moved back farther because of the shrubs that almost totally cover it coming from the North. Mr. Tompkins asked if they have five years probably should be in Dr. Stanton's sign should be in conformance by now. Didn't to bring it into compliance? Mr. Wood answered that it compliance by now so they probably should cite him also. Mr. Tompkins asked if they have a lot of walk-in traffic. Dr. Harris stated that most of it is patrons coming in, but people that don't know where he is would have to read the sign. Chairman Mills asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak to this. There being no response, the public hearing was closed and discussion took place among the Board members. John Merrell, City Planning Director, stated that viewing this sign from an aesthetic standpoint, the staff had no problem with it. Over the last few months, the staff has made a negative recommendation.onthe:various sign appeals that have come to the Board and they tend to prefer to view a sign appeal in the same sense that they do a zoning variance looking at aesthetics and traffic safety. However, although those aspects are important they are not the only thing that should be considered. Therefore, the staff's feeling is from the standpoint of a hardship and other factors related to signs elsewhere in the area, they cannot support the appeal but looking at it from an aesthetic standpoint, they do think it is an attractive sign. Mr. Boyd stated that they don't want to be put into a position of judging aesthetics because signs are too much like people's children. If they start giving variances based upon that, they would run into all sorts of problems. He added that it looks like this sign could be moved back and if Dr. Harris paid money for the sign person to put up that one, he should tell the sign person what the problem is and have him work it out. He advised that they have had problems with the sign people not getting the right information before. Mr. Wood stated that as far as he knew, Dr. Harris' sign person didn't even get a permit or even check with them on what the setbacks needed to be. He stated that he didn't know the gentleman so he didn't know if they had any previous problems with this particular person. Mr. Tompkins stated that he supports the same idea that Mr. Boyd has the test of reasonableness. If the others in the area except mentioned are in conformance, he doesn't see a "hardship" to move it it would be detrimental to the intent of signage. only for back he uses the two or that 1 • Board of Sign Appeals April 3, 1989 Page 3 • Mr. Becker stated that this is a chance to correct an error that the Board of Directors made a few years ago. Mr. Waldren stated that he basically agrees with what has been said. MOTION Gerald Boyd moved to deny the appeal, seconded by Tompkins. The motion passed 6- 0-0. Chairman Mills advised that Dr. Harris would need to talk to the staff to find out how far back the sign should be moved. Mr. Becker stated that he had trouble finding Dr. Harris' address so if he was able to incorporate the address along with the sign, it might help. OTHER BUSINESS MEASURING OF SIGNS: John Merrell advised that several months ago the Board of Sign Appeals had inquired as to whether or not the staff could submit to them a few sketches that would simply illustrate the way the Inspection staff actually measures the surface area of these signs. He added that they have attempted to do so with a few typical examples which are attached to the agenda (see attachment) including a wall sign, a ground sign and a tall ground sign such as a fast-food type. He asked Freeman Wood, Inspection Superintendent, to explain to the Board how these sign sizes are computed. Freeman Wood referred to the top left picture of the drawings and stated that they leave out the poles that support the sign but included everything else in the square footage of the sign. Mr. Waldren asked if they included the top cap of the sign in the total square footage. Mr. Wood answered, yes, the ordinance just says the supporting structure shouldn't be counted but everything else does. The cap is non -supporting and even if it doesn't have writing on it, it is counted in the total square footage of the sign. Mr. Wood referred to the McDonald's arches sign in the bottom lefthand corner of the pagae and stated that the intent there is to go around the exterior of the sign and count that but they don't count the top of the "M" in the middle where it dips down. Mr. Wood referred to the drawing in the top righthand corner of the page that shows a brick supporting structure with a sign on it. He advised that with this one, they have to use a little discretion because if the brick is only coming up a foot or two it isn't counted in the total square footage. However, if it comes up too far, it needs to be counted which makes it kind of a judgment call. This • is shown on a hillside where it is unlevel and they would probably just count the signage area and not the brick. • Board of Sign Appeals April 3, 1989 Page 4 • • Mr. Wood referred to the drawing in the bottom righthand corner of the page which shows a "Showbiz Pizza" wallsign that consists of three parts. This is included all as one sign with the space between the signs being included in the total square footage. It is like drawing an imaginary rectangle around the three parts and it would have to meet the 150 square feet or 20% area of the wall. Chairman Mills referred back to the drawing in the upper lefthand corner and asked if one of the signs hanging on this were the address would it be counted. Mr. Wood stated that he thought it would be counted as part of the total square footage. Chairman Mills stated that on one of the signs, maybe IBM, they did not count the area on the address as part of the sign. Mr. Wood stated that if they just had addresses there, he would say they wouldn't count it. However, they wouldn't want a free-standing sign there that has 29 addresses on it that is 4' wide and 16' tall. Mr. Waldren asked if one such as the drawing in the upper left-hand corner has signs supended by a chain from the cap (top) of the sign, wouldn't the whole thing be considered support. Mr. Tompkins stated that the support has been used several times as cueing information. In other words, the supporting structure will have telephone numbers, etc. on it. Mr. Wood stated that he has a problem with some of the signs that are coming in such as one with part of the supporting structure being as wide as the sign and going way up in the air and across the top. He added that if it has posts, he doesn't have a problem with it. Chairman Mills asked if they have anything that determines the size of the support. Mr. Wood stated that in the ordinance it is rather broad and maybe should need to be looked into because technically with the current ordinance a sign could have supports that were 6'x 6' and hang a sign between them. Mr. Tompkins stated that he is concerned about the real intent of this. The professional discretion is really pertinent because they are getting into this value system and urban aesthetics which is what this natural beauty component is of the intent of the sign ordinance. He noted that they don't look at color on signs. He commented that he has gotten a lot of calls on the "Auto Zone" sign. Mr. Wood advised that it is a legal sign but it just barely qualifies. Mr. Merrell stated that the staff, Planning Commission and the Board of Directors have all been getting complaints about the "Auto Zone" sign. The surface area of that sign that is painted on there can be no more than the 20% of the surface area of that wall. It was measured twice and it worked out to be about 19.6%. Mr. Boyd stated that they should maybe propose to the City Council that 20% may be too much. Mr. Wood stated that the ordinance originally was set up where a wall sign in a commercial zone could be as big as the wall. It was then cut down to 20% to 150 square feet and this "Auto Zone" sign is the first one they have had that has really went up to maximum size. Chairman Mills stated that there seem to be vague areas in the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Tompkins asked if the sign ordinance is part of the Planning Consultant's contract. Mr. Merrell answered, no, he is updating the zoning ordinance and • Board of Sign Appeals April 3, 1989 Page 5 • • parts of the subdivision regulations and other development controls but they weren't able to get signs in the contract. He added that the staff is going to be tied up with all the work and review of the work of the consultants through the Fall so, any hope that the staff might have to really comprehensively review and recommend some updates to the Sign Ordinance would have to wait until probably next Winter. Mr. Boyd advised that Beverly Hills, California had a strict Sign Ordinance and maybe they could get a copy of it. Ms. Wright stated that Lake Tahoe also has a very strict Sign Ordinance. Mr. Tompkins stated that they are in an abstract value area in natural beauty and it is hard to visualize what it is an applicant wants. Then when this is related to neighborhood, etc, it is hard to visualize whether it is going to be good or bad. He added that when people come in, they could give them an idea of what they are going to put up such as a brochure or drawing. Mr. Wood stated that they have that kind of information from big companies such as McDonalds & Hardees but the average citizen that comes in has a sketch drawn and has the sign made up after he gets a permit. Ms. Wright stated that a lot of companies manufacture only certain size signs. She advised that she is in the insurance business and that is one of the companies with the standard signs. However, because of the Fayetteville Sign Ordinance she couldn't use her company's standard size so: she had to have a sign made at her own expense. This is a problem that some businesses have in Fayetteville; they can't meet their company's requirements for the standard sign size. Mr. Wood stated that with this they run into the problem where a company has a smaller standard size sign that they don't tell the staff about until they are turned down on the larger one. Chairman Mills commented that various Board members need to make a note of the things in the Ordinance that they would like to have changed or checked to give the staff an idea of some of the questions they have. Mr. Merrell advised that this Board will have a leading role in any revisions to the Sign Ordinance. STREET NUMBERS: Chairman Mills asked who is responsible for making sure that there are street numbers on the buildings. Mr. Wood stated that has been a real problem. With new businesses and new buildings, the number has to be there before they will set water but it is a problem with the existing buildings. Mr. Merrell stated that in a sense it is the Inspection Department's responsibility. Mr. Davis advised that the numbers are on the curbs in his neighborhood. Chairman Mills noted that some areas of town don't have curbs. Mr. Tompkins asked if it would be appropriate for this Board to advise the Board • Board of Sign Appeals April 3, 1989 Page 6 of Directors that this is a problem they have been facing for quite some time and perhaps they could put it on their agenda to do something about it. Chairman Mills stated that she would like to send a request to the Board of Directors that they look into having readable street numbers on all of the businesses. Mr. Waldren stated that the County with the 911 system is actively involved in getting an accurate address for every building so they have some power through the 911 legislation to enforce that. Mr. Merrell asked if they want to gear this request only for businesses and not residences. Chairman Mills answered that they should gear it toward everything. Mr. Merrell suggested that perhaps he and Freeman Wood could relay this request to the City Attorney and look at any legal aspects, then ultimately speak to the City Manager about sending it on to the Board of Directors. They will then give them a report as to where they stand on it. Mr. Tompkins stated that he isn't sure they should have an intermediary between them and the Board of Directors. Therefore, why don't they draft a letter for them and then this Board will send it. Mr. Merrell stated that they will do that and in the meantime they will meet with Jim McCord and discuss whatever legal aspects there might be. • i :yS,